A220 RIVAL - Where Is Boeing's Answer?

[@ccudmore]

Boeing’s response to the A220 should have been “innovate”. Their actual response was “litigate”.

[@alexh2665]

Or at the very least “get your existing aircraft certified ”

[@bluelithium9808]

Ahh, the Kodak response to competition. Look where that got them.

[@afrophoenix3111]

Boeing has chosen the easy cheaper route for all their "new" aircraft families since 2004. Now, they're at the point where they really need to field a clean-sheet design, but they're in the worst financial position to start developing a brand new aircraft.

[@alexh2665]

@@afrophoenix3111 the 787 is the exception

[@crab276]

Boeing’s response would have been “innovate”. However the “new” McDonnell Douglas’s response is “litigate”, since the old McDonnell Douglas couldn’t innovate after the DC-10.

[@Archduke17]

Don't forget that the 717 wasn't Boeing's design, but originally the MD-95.

[@kingsleychima841]

A220 is not Airbus design originally

[@FrewstonBooks]

Which was originally the DC9.

[@trevorhart545]

@@kingsleychima841 BUT Boeing thought it was a big threat and tried to undermine Bombardier THEN Boeing went on to destroy their relationship with the A220 Competition, Embraer, by dishonesty. Boeing had an opportunity to have a competitor offering and BLEW IT. FAILURE is rewarded at Boeing IF you are at the TOP?

[@Archduke17]

@@FrewstonBooks - The MD-95 is an upgraded derivative of the DC-9, but that wasn't my point. The video's focus is on Boeing as an aircraft innovator. My point is that the 717 can't be cited as an example of a Boeing design when it was a project of McDonnell-Douglas.

[@michaelosgood9876]

Yea! It's an old DC 9er

[@yourfuneraldirector6432]

Love the 220

[@GregPalmer1000]

DC9=MD80=B717 Boeing shot themselves in the foot when they went after the A220 for high import fees

[@stickynorth]

The A-220 program was really one of the most clever launches in aviation history going after a market that Boeing thought was too small and too regional... They sure are proving them wrong when they can't build them fast enough at Mirabel or Mobile and people as well as operators are chomping at the bit for a -500 variant which almost ever happens these days... But there are certainly advantages on being able to fly Trans-Atlantic from places like London City...

[@x-gamessimulator1067]

A-220 or C-Series?

[@JasirGressmann]

The A220 competes head to head with the A319neo in all aspects except range. The Max-7 is actually larger and can carry up to 172 seats. At maximum configuration, the Max-7 can take 12 more passengers than the A220-300 a lot farther. However even so the Max-7 still isn't doing well, because why buy the MAX-7 if you can buy the slightly larger Max-8 with only 14 to 17 more seats to fill? Its true competitor will be the A220-500 whenever that happens. Hence why the A319neo is doing worse in sales than the Max-7. The A220-500 will definitely murder the Max-7. At this point, the A319neo and the Max-7 only make sense if you operate their larger siblings and only need a small fleet in that category. Otherwise, it's better to go for the much cheaper to operate A220-300 or even the slightly smaller and cheaper Embraer 195-E2. Ultimately Bombardier may have bitten off more than they could chew but they knew exactly what they were doing by placing the CS300 directly in competition with the A319 and the B737-700. Which forced the idiots in Seattle to enlarge the Max-7. Airbus was smart to not try to make the A319 slightly bigger, which would put it in competition wit the A320neo and was smart to buy its real competitor the first chance it got.

[@rtbrtb_dutchy4183]

It still competes with the Max-7. 12 seats isn’t that significant, unless you can sell all 172 seats. Where the 220 wins, is when you can only fill 100 seats.

[@johnchristmas7522]

Forget the "MAX". MAXIMUM DANGER. I prefer to live

[@frankpinmtl]

Airlines don't want to go above 150 pax as it requires an extra stew.

[@dereklenzen2330]

Just a reminder that Boeing spent over $40 billion on stock buybacks from 2013-2019....

[@povertyspec9651]

Love the A220- TPA-LGA on JetBlue is my frequent route- love the huge windows.

[@tdkleffman]

going forward the A220-300 will bring in the most orders...with the future A220-500 next. the A220-100 orders have already fallen off quite dramatically.

[@gunvaldsandhaland7757]

I Hope Airbus Goo For A220-500.Great Video And Info

[@w8stral]

That would completely cannnibalize their a320

[@FrewstonBooks]

Southwest (and Ryanair) decision to stick with the 737 is not only putting all your eggs in one basket from a manufacturer's point of view. Passengers are actively avoiding the MAX, and that must be hurting these two airlines (as well as others but not to the same extent). Boeing really must 'bet the company' (as they did with the 747) and embark on a new aircraft - using the latest technology, engines, etc (and going metric as well - can't believe they still use imperial units, which was a major problem with the 787).

[@toms1348]

Every 737MAX I fly on(64 flights and counting) is packed...not a single empty seat. There is a relative handful of people actively avoiding the MAX...and they're not making any impact. As for Imperial vs. metric, all Boeing aircraft are configured with a choice of both(as is the case with Airbus). So, that is irrelevant.

[@afrophoenix3111]

You can't just oopsy-daisy build an aircraft in metric, on a whim. The entire American aerospace industry - parts, fasteners, tools, rigs, each and every supporting component and process - was defined in imperial. For an industry optimized to miniscule margins, rounding errors will obliterate any operability and business case that an aircraft might have had once. A brand new up-and-comer will have less of a headache building a new SI aircraft, but Boeing has absolutely zero business case to "convert" any existing aircraft to SI, and they will not put up with the migraines of two separate sets of resources for each unit system. Boeing will ruin the company before they go metric. Not even hyperbole, just the nature of the industry.

[@toms1348]

@afrophoenix3111 , I was referring to the operational end of the aircraft...ie...units of measure as displayed on flight displays and flight management computers. Didn't mean to confuse that with materials of construction. That said, airlines, and 3rd party service companies have established two sets of tools for decades now. Whether Boeing decides to go metric or not really doesn't matter to them. I have two sets of tools, both Imperial and metric. I use whatever set is required when working on anything. My point is Boeing's sales will not be affected by the use of the Imperial system. That's a non-issue. What is a issue is whether they'll climb out of the giant hole they created for themselves.

[@whyno713]

No need to respond in the competitive marketplace when you can run next door to Capitol Hill and grovel for protectionism. Then gloat about it on Wall St. for a fat share price bounce - the *new* Boeing way.

[@trevorhart545]

The US Government has signed an agreement at the WTO NOT to give either Subsidies OR Protectionism for Boeing. It has breached this technically with the UNREQUESTED order for F/A-18 Super Hornets DID NOT REQUEST and then turning down the F-35C aircraft that USN DID REQUEST. Lockheed Martin have a legitimate complaint against Boeing which may result in Boeing having to pay compensation to Lockheed Martin with funds that it dies not have.

[@eliomarlacerda6943]

Airbus should offer the A220 with Leap engines too

[@747forever9]

Thanks Dj!!

[@grandnagus5851]

I can see Airbus stretching the A220 when the A32Xneo program nears it's end, slapping new engines under it, maybe calling it A220-500neo and thereby keep market share that they hold with the A319 and A320neo and then starting to develop a new airframe combining the tech of A220 and 320 with then new innovations.

[@frankpinmtl]

That depends what the market wants. If they want more range, they can keep the P&W GTF's and beef up structure. If the market wants it cheap it'll be a plug fore and aft of the wing and keep everything the same, losing some range.

[@quinks]

Let's look at the non-A220 competition, of which there's plenty. Embraer with a backlog of only 82 for the E1 and 190 for the E2. MRJ went under. Everything else is based on old designs (ARJ21, CRJ700, An-148) and would need major redesigns for commercial viability in the best case. This market segment is big enough to support about 1.5 manufacturers, and 6 had their hand at it in the past two decades. It'd be insanity for Boeing to think they're the exception here. They should probably just wait for whichever things in the basket of X-66, propfan, electric, oblique wing, whatever eventuates, any of which would involve a clean slate design.

[@johnchristmas7522]

Boeing bought 80% of the shares of Embrear, to halt competition!!!!!

[@markiangooley]

I flew on the 717 planes of AirTran quite a lot. Then Southwest bought AirTran and sold the 717s to Delta because of course Southwest flies 737s.

[@johnchristmas7522]

If there old 737's no problem, new ones not so much. I never fly the MAX, prefer to live, not fill a CEO's pockets.

[@jackelofnar]

Yet Boeing gave the A220 to Airbus for basically nothing. Just imagine if Beoing had completed Bombardier deal which both sides had agreed to

[@iceman9678]

It wouldn't have made sense since the so called A220 would compete with the Max 7.

[@terrygelinas4593]

​@iceman9678 yet the A220 competes with A318, and can replace it for specific routes with short jet runways (such as Florence-Paris or London City Centre to multiple destinations). A220 is a nice clean sheet design offering and very forward-looking for fleet planning.

[@trevorhart545]

@@iceman9678 Bombardier/Airbus A200 series REAL COMPETITION is Embraer. Boeing ALSO messed up a potential tie up with the Brazilian manufacturer. SILO thinking so now, according to YOU Boeing had 2 opportunities to "tie up" the market with either Bombardier or Embraer and MESSED UP both opportunities. The real question. Is there any market left for the Boeing 737 Max7? Q. should 737 Max7 be scrapped now?

[@JasirGressmann]

@@iceman9678 Yes, because the Max-7 is doing soooooooooooooooo well.

[@ronparrish6666]

And years ago they also bought the Dash 8 program from De Havilland when the wanted to get into the Reginal market and they sold it to Bombardier who stretched it to the dash 8 and made the CRJ jet also so yeah Boeing doesn't have a good track record

[@jteamaz]

Boeing needs to get their current messes cleaned up and resolved before attacking a new variant of anything ... they have enough on their plate right now.

[@luigifranceschi2350]

The A220 was a gift from Boeing to Airbus. Had not Boeing tried to have sanctions imposed on the CS series then Bombardier might had been able to continue the project on their own. Instead when the US government, at Boeing request, imposed sanctions on the CS series then Bombardier was left with no choice but to partner with a bigger player. And there was only Airbus left. Airbus was able to acquire the project for cents on a dollar. They only needed to have the A220 assembled in their plant in Alabama, so circumventing the US sanction on a Canadian plane. Moreover had Boeing tried again to have sanctions imposed on the now European plane, then Europe would have had sanctions imposed on Boeing. At the same time also, in response to the sanctions against he CS series, the Canadian government cancelled their contract for brand new Boeing F18. And now is buying instead F35, which are not made by Boeing. So basically Boeing shot themselves not in one foot, but both feet and attributes as well. This to avoid fair competition.

[@Tpr_1808]

Sometimes interest doesn't generate immediately or is initially high then drastically drops

[@zoutezoen]

And people have short memory as Boeing could have bought the C series programme, but decided not to. Probably too advanced airplane to fit in the Boeing line up 😅

[@patrickjr11]

Airbus is in an interesting position. When they do the A220-500, A322 ( probably LR version) and A350 2000 they have pretty much all bases covered. Not often, with a few tweaks, you have every option the customers could possibly want. They can pretty much now focus on what comes next and not over think current plane types. Not sure Boeing are in that space. They are short in a number of niches as well as nowhere near looking at how to move to the future. Going to take some very good management to get them back on par with airbus.

[@davidbalcon8726]

Boeing did consider buying Embraer and had it not sued Bombardier in trade court, could have bought the CSeries.

[@benhabot9526]

Maybe this will be the catalyst that speeds up development of the 797...

[@johnchristmas7522]

You DONT want more speed, certainly not with the present management and no "new" aircraft either.They'll just be another kind of MAX

[@GaryKennedy-g7p]

their "response" is Embraer. that was always the unwritten rule US controlled the big stuff Bombadier and Embraer ..... did the regional stuff same with regional turboprops - most of those engines are made in Canada

[@alaindrolet8491]

I have no respect to Boeing with what they did to Bombardier. As to put all your eggs in the same basket. Boeing have sure demonstrated having two provider is an excellent ideal. Event to go to space!!!

[@okay_then3337]

I don’t think the market for a plane that size is big enough to warrant a competitor from Boeing. Also not like they even have the resources or finances to develop a competitor.

[@maltehestbech3192]

How on earth would Boeing find ressources for this?

[@theontologist]

They can’t. They are too weak, financially. They will first have to reorganize as an engineering company, regain airline and investor confidence, and reverse billions in current losses.

[@trevorhart545]

@@theontologist That they CANNOT do without Illegal Government Subsidies. The "EXTRA" F/A-18 Super Hornet orders ARE an Illegal Subsidy and the LOSS of USN requested Lockheed Martin F-35C aircraft orders, could leave Boeing with an even bigger bill to pay.

[@toms1348]

They need to dig themselves out of a very deep hole before they can invest seriously in a clean sheet aircraft.

[@macerface]

@@theontologist it's incredibly sad what's become of them. they are paying for their own choices now.

[@camhusmj38]

I think after they’ve certified the 777x and the Max variants, the NMA is probably their next priority. If they have the resources. And then work on a replacement to the 737.

[@frankpinmtl]

An A220 is not going to have a LEAP engine for the -500. It's just too heavy, an extra 3,000 lbs under the wings would require too much of a re-design. A plug 3m fore and aft of the wing is the cheap way, losing some range. Extra fuel tanks could be added...it all depends what the airlines want.

[@jfmezei]

Boeing was sent to buy Embraer's commercial aircraft division prior to COVID and would have had products against the C-Series/220. Fell though due to finances going south with 737-MAX and/or COVID. The 717 was an orphan with incompatible cockpit within Boeing, so Boeing's main customer Southwest would not want it. Southwest wants to have a single group pf pilot who can fly any/all of its planes so this means all 737s from the -200 to the MAX needs to have common type rating/cockpit (hence need to hide MCAS). With FAA now making certification costs of a derivative similar to those of a clean sheet design, Boeing is undoubtedly working quietly on a 737 replacement with FBW and likely cockpit simiar to the 777/787. The big question is whether it will be optimised towards larger sizes so a variant can be made to replace 757/321, or whether they would optimize towards smaller and produce a competitor to a220. Boeing is having a few problems these days, so doubt they have finances able to launch a new plane. (and nothing gets launched until there is compelling new engine on horizon). Unless the A220 can become profitable, I would not be surprised if it suffers same fate as the 717 once the Québec governemnt sells its stake in it (and along with it al the conditions that came with gifting 50% of project to Airbus).

[@jeremydee5424]

There’s no mention of the engines of this aircraft

[@jantjarks7946]

Where will Boeing get the necessary funds and engineers from? With the MAX disasters and the Embraer merger off, Boeing has neither. The rebought shares are not having the necessary value and the Embraer engineers are out of reach. Sure, you can remove engineers from MAX-7, -10 certification. Or removing them from 777X certification. Or even removing them from the MAX factory floor making FAA go mad and collapsing production numbers even further. Boeing dug itself in and now can't get out of the mess. Boeing management won so much, they are lost. 🤔🤷✈️

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

The MBA experts will do that!

[@aviatornewton]

Boeing had a chance to get the C-series [A220] but they fumbled big time.

[@johndwilson6111]

Boeing made a big mistake moving head office out if Seattle. The rest is history and not wisdom.😢

[@stevemclean9411]

Boing owned Bombardier for a while.

[@ElmarLecher]

Boeing not having an answer on at least: Airbus A321XLR all Airbus A220

[@Mel-bg5nk]

boeing should have help Bombardier with the C series but there pride

[@Marcus-cz5uu]

Boeing are probably trying to incorporate current tech on to a fifty year old airframe😢

[@xkr510]

Now that’s a hard truth. Boeing tried to slap lipstick on something well past its prime and are suffering the consequences.

[@crypton5344]

Boeing cpukdve contnued the 717 actually, old airfram but the 737 is even older

[@theontologist]

The 717 isn’t even a Boeing jet. It is an ancient McDonnell Douglas model, completely incompatible with Boeing design and manufacturing.

[@daleferber2096]

@@theontologist Does not change the fact that airlines like Air Tran, Alaska Airlines both of which had nothing but that airframe at the time along with Delta and American were buying them right up until the end.

[@theontologist]

@@daleferber2096 I agree that it was a great plane. I'm just saying that it's reasonable for plane makers to reject models that are incompatible with all of their manufacturing facilities and training. It would cost billions to maintain such an inconsistent production line. Boeing should have developed its own regional jets, or adapted the DC-9/MD-95 to its own design standards, long ago.

[@daleferber2096]

@@theontologist Well if you were to follow that "logic" to it's ridiculous conclusion then they should have quit building the the F-15 and F-18 and started trying to build F somethings in Seattle No one is saying that they should have moved the 717 production and started trying to build them on the line that they had just quitting building 757's on (another mistake) with workers that had no experience on the MD airframe. The simple fact is that the factory existed, the tooling existed the trained and experience workforce existed and a training program to bring on new workers as needed existed the design existed and was :mature" and there was design department down there that could have kept it going all at minimal cost just like the MD plant that is still crankiong out F-15's and F-18's Boeing would still be delivering 717''s to airlines like Delta and everyone else who is now buying A-220's and the Embraer which only flourished because Boeing left an opening Boeing was arrogant enough to think that by cancelling both the 757 and then the 717 that they could force airlines into buying 737's and they could not fathom the idea that airlines , like Delta, United Jet Blue and now Breeze would say NO !!

[@farnorth7314]

Boeing did all the could to screw Bombardier....it very well could have been their aircraft but no way that was going to happen after Boeing tried to break Bombardier with legal fees. Looks good on Boeing.

[@johnchristmas7522]

Thats easy, why no response to the A220? well because they are centred on bean counting and Wall Street..

[@farnorth7314]

More Boeing management screwups....I flew on the A220 this past winter...wonderful aircraft. This was a major major mistake by Boeing, but in light of all their other f-ups, it may go unnoticed.

[@povertyspec9651]

I also like the 2-3 seating arrangement so I can sit with my GF without any other scumbags sitting beside us.

[@stevemclean9411]

China has a very sinilar plane C919 I think.

[@smythharris2635]

Couldn't find enough stick throwers to fulfill the quotas?

[@davidcarter4247]

The A220 is not an Airbus. It is a Bombardier aircraft that was already in airline service when Airbus acquired a majority stake in the financially and politically troubled project and rebranded it as the A220. It would have been a bargain too good to pass. The A220 will inevitably replace the A319Neo. The 737Max-7 is in the same boat as the A319Neo. Aircraft shortened to meet a market slot are always at a disadvantage over those designed to meet it.

[@darwinperez163]

B797 joins the server (year 2070)

[@richardneilan2392]

Both airlines and passengers seem to love the A220, so Airbus wins . . . . . again! While what has happened to Boeing is sad, they have no one to thank but their executives. Focusing on profit and stockholders instead of producing a quality product is what got them where they are today. Putting accountants in charge of the company instead of engineers and experienced plane builders was a huge mistake. It's hard to feel sorry for them when GREED was their motivation. Also, IMO the 717 (like the DC-9 and MD-80 and MD-90) is one of the ugliest airplanes ever built. The A220, on the other hand, is sleek and attractive.

[@bluedragonkimchi9298]

Who’s Boeing 😂😂😂JK, Boeing has so much they need to fix internally before seriously competing with airbus. It’s really a shame, thanks Calhoun!

[@alanplatt6229]

It could have theirs.

[@michaelosgood9876]

With only the problematic Max to fall back on for Boeing, this is presenting Airbus the opportunity to 'turn the screws' coz the longer this drags on, the worse its gunna get, unfortunately, for Boeing. The Max numbers, according to you, are good but the airplane has lost airlines a fortune-- no amount of BS can hide that fact

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

With a lot of discounts, you can sell any aircraft.

[@mikehindson-evans159]

Boeing had their chance. They blew it.

[@herceg6772]

Boeings response to A220 would be rushed through and here we go again. You should put a damper on your love towards Boeing a bit. Admit it or don't, but Airbus is just better plane. Comfortable and safe.

[@ysfsim]

wrong, the A220 was not an airbus plane. Airbus bought the plane after Bombardier did all the heavy lifting. Airbus didnt have a response either so the bought the competition

[@herceg6772]

@@ysfsim Airbus is safer plane in general.

[@herceg6772]

@@ysfsim what’s wrong with that??? At least they did it right. Not like mcd and boeing where everything went wrong

[@neilpountney9414]

Perhaps Boeing should shorten the 737 and put smaller engines on it!!!!!!!!

[@maxinlux6570]

Boeing's answer is nowhere, because they are in a world of hurt of their own making. Money is tight (apparently), reputation is... Doubtful?

[@enderbeam8089]

Let me guess, the Boeing 737MAXMAX 😂

[@Plane-Ship-Lover]

Ah so close the 737 MAX PRO

[@hanskaesbohrer2809]

Sorry DJ, your clips are sometimes a bit off: The 737 Max was never a good plane, it is basically a 60 years old out dated construction, pumped up with Leap engines (with reduced diametre to fit under the wings compared to the A320) and some changes and used therefore MCAS, a system that was hidden from the pilots when it was introduced.. That was the reason for two fatal crashes, Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302, in which 346 people died.

[@Joshuamd80]

717

[@dcsyd16]

They should innovate on the embarer to create a single isle jet

[@trevorhart545]

Embraer were BETRAYED by Boeing, they do NOT want to work with a manufacturer they cannot ever trust!

[@martinwuehr]

“The Max has proofed to be a fantastic aircraft”… seriously? The max has proofed to be the worst aircraft.

[@mrAhollandjr]

The answer to the Airbus A220 isn't a Boeing aircraft. It's an Embraer E195E2.

[@strayfirex]

Boeing should just buy the Mitsubishi SpaceJet. Boeing has such good ties with the company already.

[@trevorhart545]

WITH WHAT? It has no money.

[@Airstrike_dababy]

Boeing is shi

[@johnm8224]

You forgot the final t. Lol

[@Airstrike_dababy]

@@johnm8224 what?

[@Luke_Go]

Plot twist: Boeing managers weren't incompetent. They were secretly working for Airbus

[@zoutezoen]

I stopped watching and vomitted in my mouth when you started stating that the max is a fantastic aircraft. For who, only for the bean counters. It's a far outdated crampy airplane for both pilots and passengers. It's robbed from so much safety improvements and its the only commercial plane without fly by wire. It lacks a lot of redundancies, do I need to go on? Begs the question, are you covertly paid by Boeing to change the sentiment 😢

[@iceman9678]

The A220 isn't really an Airbus product and it fits below the A319neo. The A318 was arguably a flop. The 737max7 is a close comparison to the A220 and the benefit airlines will have is commonality across the max line.